The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 14:26

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Are snipers Unethical
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 15:25 
Offline

Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 16:03
Posts: 39
I was having this debate with someone as to whether on not military snipers are ethical or not.

In my opinion I would much rather be a sniper taking out specific targets than a machine gunner spraying down hundreds of troops, some of which didn't even want to be in there in the first place, however the person I was talking to seemed to believe that it was a much nastier kind of fighting that came a lot closer to being murder as it was not simply shooting to remain alive, but rather going out with the goal to kill certain people in secrecy. I don't know I didn't agree with what they were saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 16:21 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011, 14:21
Posts: 2579
My training in and philosophy on warfare, has very little room for ethics. Unless you go to win, there is no point in going. Allow me to quote US Army Gen. George Patton:-

"You cannot win a war by dying for your country, you can only win it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country".

Snipers and Marksmen - the difference:-
Sniping is an art form which few master. And it is not only about shooting well, oh no, it is about out thinking and out witting the opponent. It is like playing a game of chess; the opponent being another sniper. Snipers tend to attract each other ....

Marksmen are guys who consistently shoot well, few better examples exist than the Boer Commando's of the Anglo-Boer War. Their maksmanship were legendary.

Finally - read again the quote by George Patton.

Cheers! :)

_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tallyho2015/albums


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 16:22 
Offline

Joined: 18 Nov 2011, 17:08
Posts: 14
Man, war is not ethical.... But who cares. Properly trainied and equiped snipers is a one of the most effective weapons on the battlefield urban and other...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 18:47 
Offline

Joined: 20 Aug 2010, 14:40
Posts: 2598
good question....I don't have a answer, but the question can be expanded to include drones, LGB's, JDAM's, cruise missiles, Apaches, etc. How ethical is any weapon?

In fact I would rephrase the question, can a ethical war be fought?

This is precisely the problem that coalition forces are facing in Afghanistan & Iraq, how does one effectively and ethically engage the bad guy's. The Taliban are very smart and they know how to exploit rules of engagement rendering the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world virtually useless. The other problem is that the terrorist cells are very dynamic and flexible, compounding the ethics problem even further......hows does one ethically engage targets in a country that you are not actually at war with?

_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/141742650@N08/albums


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 20:05 
Offline

Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 16:03
Posts: 39
In my opinion war is ethical when you are fighting in defence against an people that are threatening you and those around you. As long as you are not killing out of enjoyment but out of a need, also try avoid unnecessary deaths (eg. not shoot POW's or continue to mow enemies down when they have clearly stopped fighting). Maybe I am naive and lack experience of real war, but that is my opinion.

As for Smart weapons they kill in an attempt to avoid killing, if that makes sense, they used to have to bomb large area trying to hit something in an urban setting killing many civilians in the process, with drones and cruise missiles you can now do a targeted strike and hit what you want and so avoid killing those who dont want to get involved, of course it doesnt work perfectly all the time, but it is far better than the alternative

As for Gen. George Patton, in my opinion he is the worst general that ever became famous and I would rather fight for the Hitler than that mad man (not trying to be offensive but I feel that strongly about that guy). That man gloried in death and would sacrifice troops for the sake of "Glory" sending human waves into defences that they clearly couldn't take even when there were other options, and then get upset if there were not enough deaths amongst his own men. I think he was anything but ethical in war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 20:56 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011, 14:21
Posts: 2579
Quote:
As for Gen. George Patton .... That man gloried in death and would sacrifice troops for the sake of "Glory" sending human waves into defences that they clearly couldn't take even when there were other options, and then get upset if there were not enough deaths amongst his own men.

I assume you have some sort of reference, book or document on which you base this opinion, can you share it? To unleash that kind of diatribe against the victor of the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes, Belgium December 1944) to name one, demands that you explain yourself.
Quote:
I would rather fight for the Hitler ....

How can you possibly reconcile the deeds of, and side with the dictator of Nazi Germany, and all of the atrocities this man sanctioned, and then condemn one of the most successful (American) Generals of WW2?

_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tallyho2015/albums


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 21:43 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 08:21
Posts: 1581
On snipers. They not killing innocent people. There targets present a clear threat to there comrade in arms.


On patton. Gen Patton was a great leader. I have a book discussing Gen Patton Field marshal Montgomery and field marshal Rommel.


In this book they talk of a event where Patton openly cried at a field hospital say" if I where a better man you would not be here"(something to that effect). He then almost drew his side arm on a solder suffering from shell shock saying he was a coward and should be shot. So not the best of the three but since the best was serving Hitler I will happily take patton has my CO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 01:36 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2005, 12:39
Posts: 1372
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
As for Gen. George Patton .... That man gloried in death and would sacrifice troops for the sake of "Glory" sending human waves into defences that they clearly couldn't take even when there were other options, and then get upset if there were not enough deaths amongst his own men.

Well Paton was the only Allied General that the German Generals had respect for and strangely his men were very fond of him even with his nickname of Blood and Guts.

Two news seeking Generals were Montgomery and Rommel, they both knew how to milk the media


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 06:49 
Offline

Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 16:03
Posts: 39
ok ya fight for Hitler was an exaggeration, and I do have a reference somewhere around here, as soon as I can find it I will give you the name of the book,but ya the problem is all he cared about was results and little else, I think in the same book it mentions how in the end the only way Pattons superiors were able to leash him and stop him running amok on enemy lines was they would only give him enough fuel to get to where they wanted him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 07:28 
Offline

Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 16:03
Posts: 39
The book is An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 11:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011, 14:21
Posts: 2579
John wrote:
The book is An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson

A good book by an accomplished author.

On Patton:-
- Yes he was results driven, which is also why he was successful. Results and success go hand in hand.
- Yes, upon occasion his tanks ran out of fuel because there was concern that he would continue and take the fight to the Soviets .... :) . As you will know, he did not like them much ....

But he had flair and personality and commanded huge respect from men in battle, on all sides. As W407594F mentions, the German High Command, knew and respected his ability.
He was a soldier's soldier and understood the language of the barracks. Flair, Elan, Audacity were tools of battle he used with great success.

Lastly, please allow me to quote Von Clausewitz:-
"War is dangerous, mistakes emanating from kindness on the battlefield can be of the very worst kind".

Enjoy the weekend! :)

_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tallyho2015/albums


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 11:52 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2005, 12:39
Posts: 1372
Location: United Kingdom
Fuel was aproblem for the Allies in their push across France and the low countries as it was being landed in Normandy and had to trucked to the front line units. So there was always a shortage of it and it had to be shared out amongest the different commands ie Monty and Patton.

This is why Antwerp was a very important port as it was deep water and fuel and supplies could be landed, shorrting the supply line.

The choice in late 1944 was Monty's operation Market Garden (Bridge to far) or Pattons plan to smash into Germany itself, there was only enough fuel for one of these to be done. As it turned out Market Garden was a failure as its objective was not attained and thousands of British paratroopers were lost.

In reading up on Patton you must also do Montgomery as they were bitter rivals and had been since Sicily with the race across it by the two of them.

But to me Patton was the better General and I have no love for the USA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 13:31 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 4268
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
W407594F wrote:
But to me Patton was the better General and I have no love for the USA.


A factor often overlooked when comparing these different personalities is the simple fact that Patton could always afford more casualties in both men and material than Monty could. Which forced a more cautious approach on Monty while Patton was able to take bigger risks and gambles - that they invariably paid off is evidence of his skills as a General. Patton was also a voracious consumer of Ultra intelligence and used it to attack the weakest points in the enemy line wherever possible while Monty, having suffered an early disillusionment with Ultra, was more loathe to use it to the extent Patton did.

As to which was the "better" general that is a subjective assessment. Unresolvable unless one could replay the battles swapping the generals and having Patton (or Monty) make do with the men and material the other had available at the time. One thing is certain - Patton's flamboyant personality made him, to some extent the darling (or villain) of the press. But it kept him in the limelight while Monty tended to shun it.

The _real_ Patton, as soldiers remember it as generalship, came in the battle of the Bulge, when in three short winter days he disengaged from a battle (which is difficult enough), swung his entire army north across 90 miles of frozen terrain and slammed into the German
iinvading forces. As supreme an example of leadership and management as one could wish for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 14:31 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 08:21
Posts: 1581
The english fought a slow during WW2. Waiting for there forces to gain strength. And has Rommel and Patton proofed. A fast strike forward hitting a unprepared enemy is even more effective. Patton was the best general the allies had on the western front.


A battle that never happened but should of was a fair tank engagement between Rommel and Patton. Then we could of seen who was the better man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2011, 19:46 
Offline

Joined: 19 Oct 2005, 12:39
Posts: 1372
Location: United Kingdom
Quote
A battle that never happened but should of was a fair tank engagement between Rommel and Patton. Then we could of seen who was the better man

Rommel was far from being the Germans best Panzer General, there are numerous far better Generals / Field Marshals.

Rommel was also very close to Hitler and got his first Panzer Division (French campaign, operation sickle cut) command after Hitler asked him what he would like. Rommel had been in command of Hitler army body guard during the Polish campaign. He was also able to contact Hitler directly which few other Generals could do.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group